Orlando Massacre: Rumors of Multiple Shooters

Rumors are currently circulating that multiple shooters were involved in the Orlando massacre, and that the mainstream media is covering this fact. We here at AnonHQ, being no fans of censorship, thought we’d look further into these claims in an effort to put the issue to rest.

First things first, Dan Evon of Snopes calls bullsh*t on the claim that the media is covering up the involvement of multiple shooters, and as such, we’ll be taking a closer look at his reasoning as well. Let’s start by breaking the rumor(s) down:

An individual by the name of “Cody Agnew” posted the following comment to Facebook on June 11th:

According to reports, the post went viral, and though it has since been deleted (the entire “Cody Agnew” Facebook profile has been deleted), the post itself is still being circulated. Someone who’s apparently friends with Cody posted this comment in an effort to set the record straight:

The statement that Cody Agnew claimed to have AIDS in order to get kisses from celebrities can be verified through these screenshots that were taken before his Facebook profile was deleted:

Next, it’s being reported by a few smaller alternative news sources that some witnesses actually gave accounts of multiple shooters. In The Free Thought Project’s report, a witness by the name of Janiel Gonzalez who made the following statement (source: Palm Beach Post) was brought to attention:

“I mean, I’m pretty sure it was more than one person. Like I said, I heard two guns going off at the same time.”

Snopes’ explanation for this witness’s testimony (which Snopes author, Dan Evon, believes is inaccurate), is based off a 2010 Scientific American article in which factors are given that explain why eyewitness accounts in stressful situations aren’t always reliable. Factors that apparently reduce the accuracy of eyewitness accounts include (as listed by Snopes):

Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process.

Presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress and distract witnesses).

Brief viewing times at the lineup or during other identification procedures.

We won’t guess the accuracy of this witness’s interpretation of events ourselves (the point of this report is to lay out both sides of the story so that readers can come to their own conclusions), however it issomewhat alarming that eye-witness testimonies can now be discredited and swept under the rug by science. Just saying.

In an effort to provide even critique, it should also be noted that The Free Thought Project’s report discusses Luis Burbano, a man present at the Orlando shooting who was blocking an exit and purposefully not allowing people to leave (supposedly in an effort to make sure the gunman didn’t escape—kind of strange logic, but okay). After mentioning this individual in their report and implying that many people wondered afterwards whether or not Burbano was an accomplice of the shooter, The Free Thought Project admitted that he most likely wasn’t, begging the question; why add it to your report in the first place, if not to sway your reader’s point of view?

Moving back to Dan Evon of Snopes, he then goes on to make this statement that we thought should be addressed:

“While Conspiracy theorists love to invoke the bogeyman of media cover-ups to bolster their claims, there is absolutely no reason for news outlets to hide the supposed fact that dangerous gunmen, fresh from dozens of kills, might be roaming free in a major city. (But they would have thousands of excellent reasons for covering that situation exhaustively if it were real.)”

Okay there, Dan, bring it back a bit. You’re doing an okay job of showing that the rumors of multiple shooters are probably false, however when you start to throw the term “conspiracy theorist” around—which has become more like a cliché phrase skeptics love to sprinkle throughout their arguments—and when you start to defend the mainstream media, you lose us.

The establishment-media is known to embellish, exaggerate, straight lie, ignore issues, and cover events up, which is why the news media’s credibility ratings are sharply falling. This is no longer “conspiracy theory” as much as it’s now “common knowledge.” Take it from the thousands of disenchanted Bernie-supporters who are frustrated with the media:

On a final note, Dan Evon uses a statement made by the Orlando Police Department in his Snopes article to help brace his argument that there was only one gunman, however in this particular case, the Orlando Police Department’s statement can be considered irrelevant in light of the rumor itself, which is that the media is covering-up that there was more than one gunman. As Evon emphasized, reporters would have no reason to ignore a story such as this. The obvious implication would therefore be that the government is forcing them to remain silent (for whatever reason).

All of this is theoretically speaking of course, but if it were the case, any statement from any police department can be considered unreliable. That’s like a politician assuring the public that the government isn’t corrupt—it’s a fallacy of sorts. Point being; perhaps Snopes is trusting the government and mainstream media a bit too much, but regardless, in this particular case Evon is likely correct in that the rumors of multiple gunmen at the Orlando Massacre are false. Until new evidence comes to light, we leave that determination to you.